Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Creationism is not The Christian Apologist's Only Option

We have a rule in the CADRE about not arguing among ourselves over theology or politics but we can discuss differences if there's an apologetical point to the discussion. I am not attacking Don or arguing with his view point,I am, however, going to present an alternative view to his post on creationism. It's a matter of apologetical excellence that leads me to take up this issue. I respect Don, he;s my friend, I'm not attacking him.I do not suspect his motive for wanting to reach people with the gospel. Christian apologists should know there's an alternative to creationism.We are not obligated to oppose evolution. Creationism is not synonymous with belief in God, nor evolution with unbelief. Nor are we obligated to take Genesis literally.It'snot a matter of Genesis being wrong but of understanding why it was written.The creation story is not an attempt to offer a scientific explanation of creation but to stand pagan creation myths on its head;it was written or re-worked by Hebrew slaves in Babylon, surrounded by Pagan religion and tying to hang on to the faith until they return to the homeland. Pagan myth offered a view of order out of chaos, creation came out of the abyss. The Hebrews said Order came out of order, God used wisdom and purpose in creating. It's not a scientific explanation and it makes use of pagan myth extensively. There is no reason to oppose evolution on the basis of it's disregard of Genesis. The story of creation and the fall of man have theological significance and that's what we should be concerned with.I will take issue with one fallacy that Don presented,Don argues as the major fallacy of evolution opposition to irreducible complexity, then against the evolutionist answer to that, he argues that their answer is fallacy of compositor.

The standard evolutionary rejoinder to this sort of argument [irreducible complexity] is to point out that a highly complex system can also be thought of as an amalgamation of not-quite-so-complex but still adaptively useful parts and subsystems. So biologist Ken Miller (who has been known to sport a "tie clip" made from the spring, hammer and base of a mousetrap to illustrate the point) answers Behe by an appeal to the master: "Darwin's answer, in essence, was that evolution produces complex organs in a series of fully functional intermediate stages. If each of the intermediate stages can be favored by natural selection, then so can the whole pathway."Miller is a well-respected scientist, but one could scarcely imagine a more directly stated example of the fallacy of composition. To recognize the fallacy, it may be helpful to plug some analogous referents into Miller's statement, as in: "If each of the soldiers in an army can fit in this foxhole, then so can the whole army." Or, "If each of the atoms in my body is invisible, then so is my whole body." My argument therefore is that evolution explicitly invokes a logical fallacy:[1]

Then he formulates the argument about fall.comp.

1. Evolution posits that the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components.

2. To say that a characteristic of the whole system can be adequately explained in terms of a characteristic of its individual components is to say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

3. To say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts is to commit the fallacy of composition.

4. Evolution is a fallacy.[2]

But the major answer is not to say "the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components." True though that is it is not the major answer, but I'll get to that in a bit, Then Don makes an assertion that takes a second major leap in logic when he asserts P2. The answer in P1 is not adequately described in P2. So the answer of evolution:

the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components (or systems are computations of small changes makimng up a whole)

is not

To say that a characteristic of the whole system can be adequately explained in terms of a characteristic of its individual components is to say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

The idea systems are computations of small changes makimng up a whole is nit necessarily the whole is equal to the sum of it;s parts,In fact the answer of whole is equal to sum of parts is indicative of a form of scientific methodology which is considered to be fallacious, that is certain types of reductionist. One alternative isholism which says the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That is a valid scientific theory and its in opposition to reductionist. It's a view that is fashionable now and misused by atheists quite bit, the notion of the emergent property.[3] That is compatible with the answer I would give to irreplaceable complexity:Punctuated Equilibrium.[4]We might summarize this idea as evolutionary development making big leaps. The concept was proposed in 1972 by Stephan J Gould and Niles Eldredge. "Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research."[5]

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about how the evolutionary process works, based on patterns of first appearances and subsequent histories of species in the fossil record. The theory holds that species originate too rapidly to enable their origins to be traced by paleontologists (punctuation), and then persist unchanged through geological time in stasis (equilibrium). All is due to a mysterious shared homeostasis that is postulated to regulate the collective morphology of individuals. When species-level homeostasis is working, species persist unchanged; when species-level homeostasis breaks down, specialization results. It is difficult to imagine a construct more antithetical to Darwinian natural selection. [6]

This is not a fallacy of composition, by Don's definition, because it's not saying that the whole is limited to the sum of it's parts, Moreover, the original issue Don proposes is wrong because the answer about small increments stacking up is not a fallacy of composition either. Lack of transitional forms due to limitations of preserving the fossil record.

I recommend the book The Monkey Business by Niles Eldredge to anyone who wants to kmow why creationism is wrong and evolution is a scientific fact. Te book is a bit dated (1982)[7]but that was the book that pulled me back from creationism, when I first god saved, I was so excised to know God I was willing to give the creationists a hearing,I did a lot of research ,My college debate mode was switched on, this book convinced me they were wrong.The main thing is he has respect for religious thinkers and he admired great theologians as brilliant thinkers. His main argument is the foil record he takes apart the creationist;s mistakes in understanding it,Creationism makes Christianity appear foolish,It;s just a way of saying come back to the middle ages with us, The real point of Christianity is knowing God not being right about science. We should take seriously Rudolph Bultmann's statement that we need to present the world the right stumbling block, Jesus is the right stumbling block,If one is going to stumble better to stumble over Jesus himself then over a side issue like evolution. Now that American society is more pagan and more secular and fewer people have a background i\n the faith we need to be careful of scaring them off over a side issue.

I know I speak for the CADRE as a whole when I say that we all agree the point of doing this apologetic stuff stuff is to lead people to saving knowledge of Jesus who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead to give us a hope of eternal life, Not merely to prove who is right about various issues. We have different ideas of what reaching people entails.

An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.
In chemistry, for example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.What is your definition of emergent properties?. Available from:

Sinjab:Alumni University of Leicester... ·Department of Physics and Astronomy

Computational Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Mathematical Physics

Bsc(Hons.), D.Phil, FRAS, ARAeS

One could argue emergent properties to account for big leaps that would explain irreplaceable complexity in evolution,But I am merely bring it up here to answer the idea that the reductionist whole is equal to sum of it's parts an obligatory evolutionist answer, Certainly some argue emergent property to explain consciousnesses that would definitely involve complexity,

[4] Punctuated equilibrium and emergent properties are not the same idea, the latter is a theory put forward by the school of holism.

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2007_3/books/equal.htmPhilip D. Gimgrich, Professor of Paleontology, University of Michigan, director of the museum of paleontology.[7] Niles Eldredge The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. New York:Washington Square Press,1982.

Comments

Joe, the respect you mentioned is appreciated, and of course mutual. I probably don’t need to mention that, but in a disagreement like this it's never a bad idea to clarify. :-)

>>>Christian apologists should know there's an alternative to creationism. We are not obligated to oppose evolution. Creationism is not synonymous with belief in God, nor evolution with unbelief.<<<

Now I went out of my way at the very top of my post to explicitly acknowledge that belief in evolution is not incompatible with faith in God or salvation in Christ. But I will restate it here:

"Also please understand that I neither begrudge fellow believers their views on this issue nor insist that they adopt my own views instead. As the apostle Paul and countless theologians since have argued, to press nonessential dogmas upon others as a litmus test for Christianity can be a serious stumbling block to sincere faith in Christ. But that holds across the board. Believers are not beholden to a particular theory of science any more than they are beholden to my interpretation of Scripture. I repudiate evolution not simply because I find the evidence for God's active, creative power at work in nature overwhelming, but because I find the arguments for macroevolution and common descent unconvincing, if not utterly fallacious. And as a Christian apologist I see no reason why apologists should uncritically concede to atheists the one theory they need most in order to be, as Dawkins remarked, 'intellectually fulfilled'."

Honestly I don't quite follow the rest of your argument. I'm trying to understand how Punctuated Equilibrium escapes the implications of bad evolutionary logic, for example. You're right that p.e. as defined/ described by Gingerich in the quoted bit doesn't appear to run afoul of the fallacy of composition, but I think that's because p.e. is an answer to questions about the rate of change, not about the origin of specifiably, functionally complex systems. Maybe I'll read it again later.

>>>Creationism makes Christianity appear foolish,It;s just a way of saying come back to the middle ages with us,<<<

The cross also makes Christianity appear foolish (1 Cor. 1:18-20), to say nothing of the resurrection. (Bultmann thought the very notion of a historical resurrection as unscientific as a creation ex nihilo.) Clearly the level of ridicule leveled at Christian doctrines by skeptics should not determine the content of our beliefs. And I have no interest in pretending to believe something I do not actually believe just so that some skeptical intellectuals might (but probably won't) think me more sophisticated.

Honestly I don't quite follow the rest of your argument. I'm trying to understand how Punctuated Equilibrium escapes the implications of bad evolutionary logic, for example. You're right that p.e. as defined/ described by Gingerich in the quoted bit doesn't appear to run afoul of the fallacy of composition, but I think that's because p.e. is an answer to questions about the rate of change, not about the origin of specifiably, functionally complex systems. Maybe I'll read it again later.

evolution takes big jumps that expansion how irreplaceable complexity can come about

The cross also makes Christianity appear foolish (1 Cor. 1:18-20), to say nothing of the resurrection. (Bultmann thought the very notion of a historical resurrection as unscientific as a creation ex nihilo.)

but that's the proper stumbling block.

Clearly the level of ridicule leveled at Christian doctrines by skeptics should not determine the content of our beliefs. And I have no interest in pretending to believe something I do not actually believe just so that some skeptical intellectuals might (but probably won't) think me more sophisticated.

yes it is when it's totally unnecessary, you have to confront the cross to be a Christian you don't have to confront Darwin,

I don't think the foolishness of the cross is really reliant anymore, it's about 1500 years out of date. It meant something in Paul's day because a symbol of disgrace, having been conquered, being victimized and suffering was turned into the symbol of the faith that was the absurdity, but it's been so long since anyone was crucified it's been the symbol of Christianity for so long that just has no real meaning now,as a scandal that is. Theologically it does. You have to be into theology to get it.

Really great post, Thank you for sharing this knowledge. Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same level of content as you, the internet would be a much better place Automate lead capture to sale. Please keep it up.

Thanks, For this post, I really want to say that your blog content is really good, perfect use of every single word and it is also Very Knowledgeable for different kind of firms like vancouver pr firm And I am an owner at this firm, I also want to know more about this. Really appreciating your work Well done.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.